From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Subject: Re: new version of S&AS
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:37:47 +0100
> Peter,
> Below are a few detailed comments that came up when reading through
> while revising Reference.
> Guus
>
>
> 1. Sec. 2, sentence about OWL Lite
>
> [[
> This smaller language is a useful language that provides more than
> RDF Schema
> ]]
>
> make clear that OWL Lite is not just "more" but also "less" than RDF
> Schema (e.g. extension of a restriction)
Changed to
smaller language has been defined, called
<a id="owl-lite">OWL Lite</a>
[<cite><a href="semantics.html#ref-features">OWL Features</a></cite>]. This
smaller language was designed to provide functionality that is important in
order to support Web applications, but that is missing in
RDF Schema [<cite><a href="semantics.html#ref-rdf-schema">RDF Schema</a></cite>].
(Note, however, that both OWL DL and OWL Lite do not provide all of the
feature of RDF Schema.)
> 2. Sec. 2.3 axioms
>
> [[
> The restriction construct gives the local range of a property, how
> many values are permitted, and/or a collection of required values.
> ]]
>
> "and/or" should be "or"
``and/or'' is correct, at least for OWL DL.
> 3. Sec. 4.1 mapping to RDF graphs
>
>
> 3.a. EquivalentClass:
>
> Shouldn't there be a separate mapping rule for EquivalentClass
> with a single description?
No, except that I messed up the translation rules here, which should read
...
... [opt] 1<=i,j<=n
and this would then cover the single-description case.
> 3.b. Deprecation of datatypes?!
>
> [[
> [DatatypeID rdf:type owl:DeprecatedClass]
> ]]
>
> Do we allow deprecation of datatypes?
> Using owl:DeprecatedClass seems wrong, as this is a
> subclass of owl:Class and classes and datatypes are constrained to be
> disjoint.
Hmm. I was not aware that owl:DeprecatedClass was supposed to be a
subclass of owl:Class. This is not currently indicated anywhere in S&AS.
> 3.c. owl:DataRange
>
> In the rule for "oneOf(V1 ... Vn)" the first triple:
>
> _x rdf:type rdfs:Class
>
> should be replaced by
>
> _x rdf:type owl:DataRange
I thought that the resolution of last week did not include F1 which
concerns owl:DataRange.
> 4. Sec. 4.2 disallowed vocabulary
>
> owl:DataRange is missing from this list
See above.
> --
> A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam,
> http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
peter